RUTHFULLY YOURS

The conventional wisdom is that Hillary Clinton will make her announcement that she is trying for a second time to become the Democratic nominee for president sometime in 2015. She will then go on to easily get nominated, and coast to a solid victory in the 2016 general election against any Republican nominee.

Clinton’s presumed path to victory relies on a number of factors, including that her candidacy will enable Democrats to excite another key element of their base — female voters, particularly single women, much as Obama did in 2008 and 2012 with African American voters. If she runs, she will have no serious opposition, unlike in 2008, when she was heavily favored, but led Obama in the year before the primaries began (2007) by only 10-15 points, not the roughly 50-point lead she now holds [1]over any potential opponents for the nomination. So too, Obama , even while trailing, represented a real threat to Clinton, with his ability to pull away black voters, and even women once he was endorsed by Oprah Winfrey. Obama also appealed to the anti-war left of the Democratic Party due to his early opposition to the Iraq war, which Clinton had supported as a senator. One study has calculated that Winfrey’s support may have shifted [2] a million votes in the tight Democratic nominating contest from Clinton to Obama, undoubtedly the decisive factor, if the numbers are even close to accurate.

With no serious opposition this time, Clinton’s already established national fundraising base, plus what she can absorb from the Obama campaign and DNC apparatus in terms of voter targeting and online fundraising, will enable her to fire away at any of her potential GOP opponents from the start of the campaign season. If any Republican candidate catches fire and begins to emerge in the early primaries, negative attacks and a character assassination effort can be financed, similar to what Obama’s campaign did to Mitt Romney in the spring of 2012. Clinton, in essence, will have all the fundraising and organizational advantages normally associated with an incumbent running for re-election.

Clinton is well-known to voters, and seems less divisive as a candidate this time around. Bill Clinton has struggled to restore some dignity to his name, achieved through his “work” with the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, whatever they may actually do. The Clintons will welcome a grandchild into the world later in the year, a great send-off to Hillary’s campaign if her goal is to help soften her image a bit. All the $200,000 and up speeches by the two Clintons have reconnected both of them to a very wealthy donor base, among both individuals, and corporations seeking to cement relationships with the likely next president.

There is one other major reason for delaying any announcement that her candidacy is official. Her national rollout campaign tour, disguised as a book tour, fell flat and at times proved embarrassing. Clinton seemed tone deaf about her family’s financial fortunes when Bill left office and she seemed defensive about her record as secretary of State, in particular the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012, which spoiled an otherwise nearly risk-free tenure as America’s chief diplomat.

Tuesday’s ambiguous, open-ended cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas felt like a huge let-down. Up until the very last minute (and even after it took effect), air raid sirens were wailing endlessly, and the sound of rockets exploding or being intercepted by the Iron Dome continued to permeate the air.

To make matters worse, a mere hour prior to the announcement of the cease-fire, two people from Kibbutz Nirim were killed in a mortar attack. This happened just a few days after a four-year-old boy from Kibbutz Nahal Oz suffered a similar fate.

In addition, since the many cease-fires to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed throughout the 50 days of Operation Protective Edge all ended abruptly with a Hamas breach, Israelis were hard pressed to believe that this one would be any different. And there was a general sense of malaise about aborting the operation before rendering Hamas totally powerless.

So, while Hamas leaders emerged from their bunkers to declare victory — with a few thousand Gaza residents dancing in the streets, shooting in the air and chanting songs about killing Jews — Israelis sat at home (or remained in temporary lodgings away from the Gaza border), deflated, disillusioned and angry.

On Wednesday evening, Netanyahu gave a joint press conference with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz to assure the public that the government had given in to none of Hamas’ demands — and to reassure us that no subsequent “drizzle of rockets” would be tolerated. Netanyahu stated unequivocally that the IDF would hit Gaza even harder if Hamas pulled any stunts.

Residents of the south were furious, fearing that the war had not made them any safer than they had been before. They continue to worry not only about a resumption of rocket-fire, but about the possibility that not all the terror tunnels leading into their area were destroyed — something that would put them at risk of slaughter while they sleep or abduction in broad daylight.

Debates about whether the current situation constitutes a victory or a defeat for Israel began to rage, as did arguments over the long-term goals of the government where the Palestinians are concerned. The unity that characterized society at the beginning of the war in July seemed a thing of the distant past, with Netanyahu’s popularity at 38 percent, down from 85 percent six weeks ago.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, writer, public speaker, and a 9/11 survivor of the WTC attacks in NYC. She formerly served as a counsel for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and for the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Mayor Giuliani. She currently works for Vigilance, Inc. and is considered an expert on OIC UN resolutions. She is the primary writer and researcher for a recently released book, Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation, published by CFNS.

FP: Deborah Weiss, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

DW: Thank you for inviting me.

FP: Tell us a little bit about CAIR and its background.

DW: CAIR holds itself out as a Muslim Civil Rights organization, but in fact it’s an Islamist supremacist organization whose ultimate goal is the implementation of Sharia law. It has a network of chapters that are separately incorporated, but have similar goals, tactics and often overlapping or interchanging directors and staff. It’s based in America and Canada.

CAIR’s roots spawn out of Hamas and the Islamic Association of Palestine, both of which are State-designated terrorist organizations. It adheres to the same interpretation of Islam as the Muslim Brotherhood and serves as the propaganda wing of the so-called “Islamic Resistance Movement” in the West.

It has some funding from its membership, but also receives large contributions from donors in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE and Kuwait.

FP: What are CAIR’s goals in the United States?

DW: CAIR appears to have three main goals. One is to silence all criticism of anything related to Islam including Islamic terrorism. Second, it seeks to Islamize the workplace, and third, it works actively to hamper American national security.

FP: Can you give us some examples of how CAIR engages in each of these activities?

DW: Sure. CAIR often files frivolous lawsuits against anyone who blows the whistle on CAIR in order to silence their speech. It also tries to smear reputations and shut down speakers, authors, and politicians who seek to inform the public about the dangers of Islamism, whether it’s regarding Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But it also tries to shut down individuals or companies that make jokes, cartoons or films that shed Islam or Muslims in a negative light.

‘Easy Meat’: Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs — on The Glazov Gang

The Left’s ugly role in 1,400 children discovered as victims of Muslim prostitution rings in Rotherham, U.K.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/easy-meat-inside-the-world-of-muslim-rape-gangs-on-the-glazov-gang-2/

A horrifying news report in The Telegraph has recently confirmed that 1,400 children were discovered as victims of Muslim rape gangs and prostitution rings in Rotherham, UK, while authorities and child protection services turned a blind eye in order to avoid being called “racist.”

Daniel Greenfield’s blog at The Point deals with this shameful and outrageous story: “UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children.”

In response to the surfacing of this story, and to shed light on the dark forces that help make the vicious system of Islamic sex slavery possible in the West, Frontpage is re-running The Glazov Gang’s special 2-part series with Gavin Boby of the Law and Freedom Foundation about the terrifying reality of Muslim rape gangs in the UK and how the Left facilitates their barbaric crimes against helpless young girls. The series crystallizes why the horrible story emerging about the 1,400 child victims in Rotherham was a Muslim crime that the Left allowed to occur.

In Part I, Boby shares his battle against “Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.” and in Part II, he discusses his report on this horrifying phenomenon, “Easy Meat,“ and takes us “Inside the World of Muslim Rape Gangs”:

Say this about Vladimir Putin. The Russian strongman has taken the measure of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Obama. He knows they dread a showdown over Ukraine, so he is ignoring their rhetorical protests and moving to carve out even more of Ukraine for Greater Russia.

That’s the meaning of the Kremlin’s decision this week to move Russian forces into the Ukrainian coastal town of Novoazovsk while shoring up Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. A NATO official said “well over” 1,000 Russian troops, backed by heavy armor, have joined the separatists in fighting Ukraine’s military.

The Kiev government is calling this an “invasion,” while NATO clings to “incursion,” but that’s a distinction without a difference. Russia invaded Ukraine in February by grabbing Crimea. It has since escalated its military intervention in multiple ways, including with special forces and by firing artillery at Ukrainian positions from both Russian territory and inside Ukraine. If Spanish-speaking men in army garb grabbed El Paso and Mexican artillery fired at the Texas National Guard, Americans would call it an invasion.

The strategy behind Mr. Putin’s move into Ukraine’s southern coast is to open a land bridge between Russia and Crimea. The goal is to reduce Crimea’s isolation so Russian military garrisons can be reinforced by land instead of by air, and the peninsula’s economy can be knit more closely to Russia’s.

The escalation also opens up another front for the Ukrainian military as it tries to regain control over the east. Ukraine’s military has been making progress against the separatist forces occupying Donetsk and Luhansk, and Mr. Putin may figure he had to act now to prevent the rebels from being overrun. Kiev’s forces will now have to fight on a third front against Russian soldiers and armor.

The timing is notable, but not surprising, on the heels of the much-ballyhooed Tuesday meeting between Mr. Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Western Europeans, in their desire to have this crisis go away, had hoped the meeting would yield progress toward a negotiating solution.

The Obama administration talks global warming as the world burns.

Secretary of State John Kerry said during his January 2013 confirmation hearings that he would be a “passionate advocate” on climate-change issues, and he’s living up to that promise. In a speech this month in Hawaii, Mr. Kerry called climate change “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.” Not 10, 20 or 100 years from now—right now.

If only Mr. Kerry were right. Unfortunately, America faces much bigger immediate challenges and threats than climate change. Our enemies around the world are intent on harming us—right now. America’s secretary of state should worry more about them and less about the Earth’s temperature decades from now.
Here’s a list of a few challenges, all of which pose a greater threat to the world than climate change. It might help the president and his colleagues understand why Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy approval rating is about 36%, according to an August poll by Gallup.

Yiddish Tango Is Irresistible Musical Hybrid
A Rhythmic Melting Pot From Buenos Aires to Vilna
JTA) — The music that packs the Skirball Cultural Center’s stately courtyard – Yiddish tango – is a musical hybrid twice over.

On the tango side, it is a blend of African-born rhythms and a potpourri of European music styles. On the Yiddish side, it combines mournful liturgical melodies with folk songs.

Tango, too, is famous for its sensual dance, while Yiddish music is rooted in the festive freylekhs of traditional wedding bands.

In combination, the two prove irresistible, as the concert crowd stands and sways to the tangled rhythms.

For Gustavo Bulgach, 47, band leader of Yiddish Tango Club — the star attraction at the Skirball on Aug. 21 — the music is also a reminder of his childhood in Buenos Aires in the 1970s and ’80s. Born to a family of Russian Jewish immigrants, Bulgach grew up in Argentina learning Jewish folk music at the feet of his grandfather, a passionate music lover, and in the synagogue founded by his grandfather.

At the same time, he says, “Tango is more than the music you hear in Buenos Aires, it’s something you breathe.”

Bulgach is far from the first to combine Jewish music and tango in a heady combination. Tango music was born in late 19th-century Argentina in communities of newly arrived European immigrants, many of them Jews.

As Jewish musicians learned to play in the increasingly popular style, they added their own musical and linguistic flourishes — not only joining major tango orchestras, but also composing new tangos in Yiddish. Max Zalkind , for one, composed both in Yiddish (“Odesa Mama”) and Spanish (“Mi Quinta in Castelar”).

‘I am speaking on behalf of the United States of America because my negotiators cannot,” Abigail Borah, a youth delegate to the 2011 Durban climate negotiations, yelled from the conference floor. “I am scared for my future,” she cried, silencing Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s chief climate negotiator. “We need an urgent path to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty.”

Now the Obama administration is signaling that there will be not be a new climate treaty. According to a report in Wednesday’s New York Times, the path to a treaty has come to an end, 14 months before the Paris talks scheduled for next year. Instead, the best deal on offer is a non-binding accord. This is big news.

Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is reheating the rhetoric from its fifth assessment report, doing what it always does: produce the right mood music ahead of crunch-time climate talks. Trouble is, it’s all sounding more than a little dated. In that report, the first installment of which was released last September, the IPCC ducked the big question unsettling climate science. What are the possible causes and implications of the pause — or hiatus, as the IPCC prefers to call it — in the rise in average global temperatures? The pause is already more than a decade old. With 39 explanations and counting, and some climate scientists now arguing that it might last yet another decade, the IPCC has sidelined itself in irrelevance until it has something serious to say about the pause and has reflected on whether its alarmism is justified, given its reliance on computer models that predicted temperature rises that have not occurred.

While the IPCC plays yesterday’s tired hits, it appears that next year’s climate-change negotiations will bring forth a mouse. In retrospect, the Durban climate conference turned out to be the high point for expectations that climate negotiations would produce a binding treaty. It was also the high point for the European Union’s climate-change strategy, knocking the U.S. on its heels. After the acrimonious collapse of attempts to agree to a climate treaty at Copenhagen in 2009, American and European climate negotiators drew diametrically different conclusions about what to do next.

There are also the silent “Womenistas” of Congress, including some men, mostly Democrats who list Women’s Issues as a priority- abortion on demand, control over their own bodies, fairness in the workplace, equal pay, opposition to violence against women etc……but not a word about the kidnapped girls of Boko Haram, or “honor” killings, or stoning of adulterous women, or gang rape of minors- all conducted under Sharia law. But, just use lewd language or make a suggestive comment and these idiots will demand censure and legislation….. rsk
Feminists see “rape culture” in nail polish (and everywhere else) but now remain silent about real abuse.

Presumably the advent of a nail polish capable of detecting date-rape drugs in one’s cocktail would mark a high-water point in the empowerment of women against predatory men. Not so fast: The feminist backlash against the product has been vehement. According to ThinkProgress, such an innovation “actually reinforces a pervasive rape culture in our society.”

Feminists of the vocal, bathe-in-male-tears sort find proof of “rape culture” all about: in newspaper satire, in ’80s movies, in the verb “to force.” So one would think news that between 1997 and 2013 at least 1,400 children in Rotherham, England, were victims of sexual exploitation would confirm the feminist narrative and ignite their righteous fury.

Not so fast.

Released Tuesday, August 26, the “Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham,” commissioned by Rotherham’s Metropolitan Borough Council, details sexual abuse, including sex trafficking and gang rape, perpetrated over nearly two decades by older men against children in Rotherham. News outlets have released horrifying supplementary details. The U.K. Mirror, for instance, reports that “Emma,” a Rotherham-area girl, was raped once a week beginning when she was 13 years old. When she provided to police the names of 250 men she claimed had raped her, police ignored her. Hundreds, if not thousands, of girls in Rotherham and throughout England probably experienced the same.

In Rotherham there is a real-life “rape culture.” But you will not learn anything new about it from Salon, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, or Slate. It has gone unmentioned at Feministing, Bitch Media, or the Feminist Majority Foundation. There have been no outraged op-eds from Jenny Kutner, Jessica Valenti, or Samantha Leigh Allen.

These are, apparently, not the rapes they are looking for.

Rotherham’s — and England’s — Shame
The Muslim men who tortured more than 1,400 girls are criminals. So are the authorities who covered it up.

We often read or hear from the media that a nation is “shocked” or “horrified” by the revelation of some crime or government scandal. It is almost never true. At best, most people are disapproving or mildly interested in the shocking news. Since Tuesday afternoon, however, Britain has felt real shock and horror over the report that 1,400 young women in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham had been groomed, raped, prostituted, trafficked, and brutally abused in almost every possible way by a criminal gang for the last 16 years. In addition, the authorities — which in this case are the local government authority, the police, and the child-protection services — had been repeatedly informed of these crimes but had dismissed the reports as false or exaggerated and taken no action to investigate, halt, and punish them.

Some of the examples of this depraved official indifference are barely believable. In one case, a girl was found drunk in the company of her exploiters and was arrested while the men were let free. In another, a father found his daughter, tried to rescue her, complained to the police, and was himself arrested while the authorities took no action on his complaint.

It is not as if this series of crimes was hidden or unknown. No fewer than three official investigations (prior to this one) looked into these crimes. They reported the broad truth that we now know and called for further investigations and arrests. The police and child-protection services did nothing whatever about them. Indeed, they quietly pigeonholed the findings with dismissive comments. The local councilors looked the other way or, on some occasions, intervened to discourage investigations by the police. Only the general public was innocently ignorant.